Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDED DAY
PROGRAMS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT IN READING AND MATH
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Online
College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
David Cullen DuVal
ii
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDED DAY
PROGRAMS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT IN READING AND MATH
Copyright ©2011
David Cullen DuVal
All Rights Reserved
iii
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT IN READING AND MATH
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Argosy University Online
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
By
David Cullen DuVal
Argosy University
July, 2011 Dissertation Committee Approval: ___________________________________ _________________________________ Janet Wynn, Ed.D., Dissertation Chair Date ___________________________________ Michelle Williams, Ed.D., Member ___________________________________ ________________________________ Judith Gilliam, Ed.D., Member Heather Pederson, Ed.D., Program Chair
iv
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT IN READING AND MATH
Abstract of Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University Online College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
by
David Cullen DuVal
Argosy University
July, 2011
Janet Wynn, Ed.D.
Michelle Williams, Ed.D.
Judith Gilliam, Ed.D.
Department: College of Education
v
ABSTRACT
This study examined whether a noncompulsory extended-school day program improved
the academic achievement of students who had previously failed to demonstrate
proficiency in reading and/or math as measured by the Georgia Criterion-Referenced
Competency Test (CRCT). The selected district’s intervention involved provision of
supplemental instruction outside of traditional school hours. Participation was intended
to elevate students’ achievement levels in reading and mathematics. Quantitative
analysis of Georgia CRCT standardized test scores of students who participated in the
intervention as compared to students who declined participation in the intervention
revealed statistically significant differences. Student who participated in the extended
day program had significantly higher scores in reading and mathematics than their peers
who declined the intervention. This study has implications regarding the effectiveness of
extended day programs in improving the reading and mathematics achievement of
students who participate.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….v TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii TABLE OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM ................................................................................... 1 Problem Background .......................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 7 Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................. 7
Limitations ...............................................................................................................7 Delimitations ............................................................................................................8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9 Importance of the Study .................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER TWO: THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................... 12 Introduction …. ................................................................................................................. 12 Focus on Extended Learning Time (ELT) Programs ........................................................ 12
Defining ELT .........................................................................................................12 ELT Program Objectives .......................................................................................15 Reasons for Adopting ELT Programs ....................................................................18 Reasons for Dropping ELT Programs....................................................................20
Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................................................... 21 Methods for Extending Learning Time..............................................................................23
Distance Learning ..................................................................................................24 Alternative In-school Scheduling ..........................................................................25 Summer Classes .....................................................................................................26 Saturday School .....................................................................................................27 Extended Day Programs (EDP) .............................................................................28
After School Programs ...............................................................................28 Before School Programs ............................................................................30 EDP at Study Site.......................................................................................30
Funding for ELT Programs ............................................................................................... 32 Prior Research Addressing ELT Programs ....................................................................... 34
Proponents of ELT Programs.................................................................................35 ELT Program Opposition .......................................................................................36
Summary of Literature Reviewed ..................................................................................... 37 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 40 Research Design................................................................................................................ 40
Selection of Participants ........................................................................................40
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................42 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 45
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 46 Data Processing and Analysis ....................................................................................... 48 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 52 Restatement of Study Purpose .......................................................................................... 52 Research Question One: Reading Achievement ............................................................... 52 Research Question Two: Math Achievement ................................................................... 54 Significance Testing.......................................................................................................... 56 Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................. 57 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 59 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 62
RQ1: Impact of Program on Reading Achievement ..............................................62 RQ2: Impact of Program on Mathematics Achievement .......................................64
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 65 Recommendations for Research ....................................................................................... 67 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 69 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 74
viii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Decision Criteria for CRCT Score Comparison .......................................................... 50
2. Achievement Data for 2010 Reading CRCT ............................................................... 53
3. Achievement Data for 2010 Mathematics CRCT ........................................................ 55
4. Significance of the Achievement Changes .................................................................. 57
ix
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
Appendix A: 2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group A ................................................... 75
Appendix B: 2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group B ................................................... 77
Appendix C: 2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group C ............................................ 79
Appendix D: 2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group D ............................................ 81
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a debt of gratitude to many people who helped me progress during this
journey. Thank you to my committee and advisor, Dr. Janet Wynn, Dr. Michelle
Williams, Dr. Judith Gilliam, and Dr. James Mitchell, for providing wonderful
comments, suggestions, and advice throughout this process. Your feedback helped me
produce a better dissertation and enabled me complete this adventure.
Thank you to my editor, Michelle Huebsch-Belcher, for all of your assistance
completing this dissertation. Without your help and kind words, completing this
dissertation would have been an even bigger task than it already was.
Thank you to my best friend in the world, Valleri DuVal, for all of your help
along this adventure. Without your pushing, words of encouragement, and support, I am
not sure if I would have been able to complete this journey. I know your support made
this possible; with your support, I have produced a dissertation.
A special thank you to my boys, Cullen and Brayden, who bring sunshine to my
day and are the two best sons a dad could ask for. Part of this adventure is dedicated to
you, all that I do now is intended to bring a better and brighter future for my boys.
1
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
Problem Background
Throughout the first decade of the new millennium, many public schools across
America focused on establishing academic programs that were conducted outside of
traditional school hours (Yell, 2006). These academic support programs were intended to
assist students with attainment of academic improvement (Yell, 2006). The prevalence of
these programs was attributed to general efforts to comply with the requirements of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Yell, 2006). Specifically, NCLB mandated that
schools across the country must ensure that all students attained proficiency in reading
and math by the year 2014 (Yell, 2006). This goal was anticipated to eradicate the
academic achievement gaps evident between diverse groups of students (Yell, 2006).
Ongoing assessment of progress towards achievement goals on standardized tests
administered by each state was also required within NCLB (Yell, 2006). The Georgia
Department of Education (GA-DOE, 2008) has utilized the statewide Criterion-
Referenced Competency Test (CRCT) to measure students’ progress towards proficiency
within the state’s curriculum. The CRCT scores have also been used to determine
whether schools throughout the state were attaining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
and, subsequently, demonstrating compliance with NCLB mandates (GA-DOE, 2008).
Therefore, the CRCT has been administered every spring since 2002 to all middle school
students (GA-DOE, 2008).
Starting at the national level, NCLB legislation has begun to change how the
education system works (U.S. Department of Education [US-DOE], 2004). Initially,
NCLB caused states to become more accountable for students’ academic achievement,
2
specifically in the content areas of reading and mathematics (US-DOE, 2004). States had
to create accountability systems that documented whether students were proficient in
reading and mathematics (US-DOE, 2004). Additionally, these accountability systems
had to establish a mode of reward for school systems that attained AYP (US-DOE, 2004).
Likewise, states had to develop a plan to help improve school districts and individual
schools that did not meet AYP standards (US-DOE, 2004).
While the primary focus of the nationwide effort was intended to have states
ensure that all students would become proficient in reading and mathematics, the law did
influence states, school districts, and individual schools in other ways (US-DOE, 2004).
For example, NCLB allowed states and school districts more flexibility with their use of
funds received from the federal government (US-DOE, 2004). School districts
specifically had more latitude with their use of Title I funds at their lowest performing
schools (US-DOE, 2004). NCLB also changed how states implemented programs for
students who did not demonstrate English language proficiency (US-DOE, 2004). This
flexibility meant schools could combine how they funded and provided services to teach
English language skills to bilingual and immigrant students (US-DOE, 2004). Changes
were made that streamlined services for all students needing to develop English language
comprehension and communication skills (US-DOE, 2004). Finally, NCLB required that
states must ensure that their core subject teachers were certified as highly qualified in the
subject area(s) they taught (US-DOE, 2004). According to Georgia Professional
Standards Commission (n.d.), a highly qualified teacher was one who had earned his or
her teaching certificate from the state, had a Bachelor’s degree, passed the necessary
GACE tests, and had shown proficiency in the subject area s/he was assigned to teach.
3
The overall goal of NCLB was intended to establish accountability for the
different entities involved in the process of providing quality education and ensuring that
all students would demonstrate the desired proficiency in reading and mathematics (US-
DOE, 2004). NCLB did allow states to determine how their school districts and schools
would demonstrate AYP (US-DOE, 2004). However, by 2014, all schools were required
to show 100% proficiency in the content areas of reading and mathematics (US-DOE,
2004).
To maintain alignment with NCLB, Georgia’s Department of Education
established requirements in three areas that would enable each school to attain the
required AYP (Barrow County Schools, n.d.; GA-DOE, 2008). The first criteria involved
the percentage of students enrolled in the school who took the CRCT. To attain AYP,
each Georgia school must have at least 95% of its students take the CRCT (Barrow
County, n.d.). The second criteria involved student attendance rates. To attain AYP, no
more than 15% of the student population could miss more than 15 days of school
(Barrow County, n.d.). Further, the annual percentage of absences was required to
decrease from the previous school year (Barrow County, n.d.). The third criteria
involved attainment of specified achievement goals on the math and combined reading
and language arts sections of the CRCT. Specifically, in 2010, for schools to attain AYP,
67.6% of the enrolled students were required to pass the Math section of the CRCT while
73.3% of the enrolled students were required to pass the Reading and Language Arts
sections of the CRCT (Barrow County, n.d.). Since NCLB mandated that all students
must be proficient in the areas of math and reading by 2014, Georgia’s schools focused
4
their efforts on improving their passing rates on the CRCT to attain 100% over the next
four years (Barrow County Schools, n.d.).
If any school in Georgia did not attain AYP, the individual school was classified
as Needs Improvement (NI) (Taylor, Stecher, O'Day, Naftel, & Le Floch, 2010).
“Georgia developed a continuum of services consisting of nine levels of ‘Needs
Improvement’ (NI) through which schools receive[d] progressively more intense
services” (Taylor et al., 2010, p. 116). All schools on the NI list failed to attain AYP; for
each consecutive year, the school failed to make AYP, the school moved up the list to
receive assistance with efforts implemented to attain AYP (Taylor et al., 2010). As the
school moved up the NI list, Georgia’s Department of Education became more involved
in the school’s interventions to attain AYP (Taylor et al., 2010). Specifically, schools
identified as NI1 or NI2 received three visits every nine weeks from school improvement
facilitators and training for the site leadership and teaching staff (Taylor et al., 2010).
The state’s intervention facilitator assessed how the school was working to improve the
academic performance of its students (Taylor et al., 2010). If a school remained on the
list for failure to meet AYP, state facilitators visited weekly at levels NI3 and NI4 and
twice weekly at NI5 (Taylor et al., 2010). In addition, at NI5, the school was obliged to
create and implement a contract that showed how it would improve (Taylor et al., 2010).
This contract was signed by the state’s superintendent of schools and was monitored by
the state department of education (Taylor et al., 2010). In addition to increased
supervision, the longer a school remained on the needs improvement list it received more
money to support efforts to improve the school (Taylor et al., 2010).
5
On a smaller scale, NCLB provided options for academic growth for students
attending a school that was not attaining AYP (US-DOE, 2004). In this situation,
families received opportunities to help their children receive a better education (US-DOE,
2004). These opportunities included school choice, whereby the child could attend
another school in the district with transportation provided for the student by the district
(US-DOE, 2004). The option of school choice became available to a student, if the
student’s school failed to achieve AYP three years in a row (US-DOE, 2004). Another
option involved tutoring services, within the school district and outside the school the
student attended, which were also funded by the school district (US-DOE, 2004).
Due to the accountability measures of NCLB, states, school districts, and schools
have become proactive in their efforts helping students improve achievement, specifically
in the grade-appropriate content areas for math and reading (T. North, personal
communication, March 12, 2010). Schools offered instructional extensions, extended day
programs, teacher-provided tutoring, advisement classes, and zero hour programs (North,
2010). The goal for all of these programs was to help students become more proficient in
reading and math, which would, subsequently, enable the school to make AYP and stay
off any list that showed the school as failing or needing improvement (North, 2010).
School systems also implemented extension programs conducted outside of formal school
hours as a way to help students immediately, instead of waiting to intervene when one of
their schools was identified as a “failing” or “needs improvement” school (North, 2010).
While there were many options available for districts and individual school sites
to utilize to help students become more proficient in math and language, the extended day
program has become a popular option (D. Price, personal communication, June 9, 2010).
6
For some school districts, the use of extended day programs had become popular because
it allowed the school to develop a program that fit the particular needs of its students (D.
Price, personal communication, March 13, 2011). The use of extended day programs
allowed the schools to look at the areas in which its students were struggling and create a
program that helped the students increase in the area of need (D. Price, 2011). The
school district identified for this study preferred the option of using an extended day
program because both site and district faculty believed that it was important to keep the
academic routine consistent for as many students as possible (Price, 2010). School
leadership concurred that when providing help for struggling students, taking away a
connections class and replacing it with another class for remediation would do more harm
then good for the learners (Price, 2010). A connections class was identified as a non-core
class a student took during the regular class day. A connections class might include, but
was not limited to chorus, art, band, computer technologies, and team sports. This
concern arose because of the fear that remediation classes would overload the students
with material in one content area, which would cause the student to burnout (Price,
2010). In addition, some educators believed that by separating the remediation from the
regular school day, via an extended day program, it would influence the way the student
felt about the program (Price, 2010). More specifically, instead of thinking of the help as
another remedial class, it was believed that the student would perceive the extended day
program simply as additional help the school offered for everyone (Price, 2010).
Potentially, this was believed to make help available to the students without the stigma
for struggling learners (Price, 2010). In this manner, using an extended day program, the
7
district identified for this study proposed to close existing achievement gaps and attain
AYP, as mandated by NCLB (Price, 2010).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of an
extended day program at the middle school level influenced student achievement in
reading and math. Specifically, this study examined reading and math achievement of
middle school students as measured by their scores on the reading and math sections of
Georgia’s CRCT.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study.
Research question one. Is there a statistically significant difference between the
reading achievement of middle school students who participated in an extended day
program as compared to students who did not participate in the extended day program?
Research question two. Is there a statistically significant difference between the
math achievement of middle school students who participated in an extended day
program as compared to students who did not participate in the extended day program?
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Some conditions of this study had the potential to influence the data collection
process and/or outcomes of the study, but they were beyond the researcher’s control. For
example, the selection process used by the study site for participation in the extended day
tutorial program was considered a limitation. This was a limitation because the school
only used CRCT scores as criteria for inclusion when deciding which students would
8
receive an invitation. This meant that teachers could not recommend students who they
observed struggling in the classroom. Therefore, these enrollment parameters might have
included students who did not need the supplement. Conversely, this approach might
have excluded students for whom this remediation was pertinent. Similarly, as a
voluntary program, the inconsistency of student attendance was another limitation that
could have influenced the findings of this study. Additionally, teachers of the extended
day program may have differed in experience level, particularly related to their
experience working with low-performing students, which could have affected the results
of this study. Ultimately, the generalizability of this study’s findings was limited since
the strategies and selection processes used in the identified district, within their extended
day program, was likely to differ from other counties and/or program locales.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were parameters that the researcher controlled, but
still had the potential to restrict the ability to generalize the findings. For example, a
convenience sample was developed using only the middle schools from a single Georgia
school district. This study only examined the impact of the extended day programs on
the middle school level, even though extended day programs were used in both the
elementary and high schools in the same school district. Both the restriction to one
school district and only its middle schools may have influenced the findings.
Subsequently, the small sample size may have limited the generalizability of the findings
to other populations and/or other school districts. These self-imposed limits for inclusion
in this study might have influenced whether the findings applied to other school districts
currently using or interested in using an extended day program.
9
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following terms were defined.
Academic Achievement. Academic achievement refers to a student's ability
level in reading in math. Students’ proficiency in reading or math is determined based on
the attainment of a passing score on the annual, statewide curriculum review tests. A
student who scores below an 800 on the CRCT is said to be in the “Does Not Meet”
range. A student who scores between an 800 and 849 is said to be in the “Met” range. A
student who scores an 850 or high is said to be in the “Exceeded” range.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This “is an annual measure of student
participation and achievement of statewide assessments and other academic indicators.
AYP holds each local school district and each individual school accountable for the
academic success of students” (GA-DOE, 2008, p. 1).
Criterion Referenced Competency Test (CRCT). This test was designed by
Georgia’s Department of Education to measure all Georgia students’ learning of the
curricular content and objectives within the Georgia Performance Standards. This test
specifically measures the level of mastery attained by students in the subjects of
Language Arts, Math, Reading, Science, and Social Studies. The students’ scores on this
test is a component of the evaluation of the school’s attainment of Adequate Yearly
Progress (GA-DOE, 2008).
English Language Learner (ELL). A student not proficient at reading, writing,
and/or speaking the English language (personal communication, Dr. M. Kuhne,
September 18, 2010).
10
Extended Day Program (EDP). An extended day program is one model of an
extended learning time program. Extended day programs are an extension of the school
day. An extended day program may take place before or after school hours.
Extended Learning Time (ELT) Programs. Extended learning time programs
are programs instituted by schools outside of normal school hours. Extended learning
time programs can focus on a variety of student needs, such as academic achievement,
social skills, and personal health. Schools may hold extended learning time programs for
students before or after school, on the weekends, during the summer, or through distance
learning opportunities.
Needs Improvement (NI) School. For the purpose of this study, NI refers to a
school that fails to make AYP by not reaching one of the achievement goals set forth by
the state in accordance with NCLB.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This legislation changed how all levels of
the education system work throughout the United States. Within this legislation were
several components designed to provide quality education and to enable all students to
achieve academically. First, NCLB included a grant program called Reading First,
which was initiated to help fund reading programs at the state and district levels for
students in grades K-3. Second, NCLB required that states must ensure all teachers are
qualified to teach their designated subject, provide a report card showing the achievement
of their students, and utilize a standardized test given yearly to all students in third
through eighth grades. Finally, all schools must provide a report card that demonstrates
student achievement and school-wide advancement toward AYP (Education Week,
2004).
11
Title I. This term refers to schools that receive extra funding to help with the
education of economically disadvantaged students. Schools may use this money to help
improve or supplement the programs offered by the school, develop opportunities to
work with parents, offer counseling, and/or improve the instructional tools available in all
core subject areas. In return for receiving these funds, the school must demonstrate that
their students’ level academic achievement is improving
Importance of the Study
This study was proposed to examine the impact and effectiveness of one Georgia
school district’s extended day program on the middle school students’ achievement in
reading and math. The analysis of students’ test scores on the Georgia CRCT facilitated
the determination of the impact of the intervention on the students’ reading and math
achievement. This data was anticipated to provide insight regarding the extended day
program’s effectiveness for raising student achievement. Additionally, the results of this
study was anticipated to assist the study site and other districts in the development of an
understanding regarding how the extended day program supported the academic
achievement of the middle school students. Finally, this study was proposed to gather
findings that would add to the current body of literature regarding the effectiveness of
extended day programs for advancing student achievement and, subsequently, school
attainment of AYP.
12
CHAPTER TWO: THE REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Exploration of the effectiveness of interventions for achievement, such as ELT
programs, required a comprehensive review of literature. This review provided an
opportunity to understand the history, development of objectives, and implementation
processes associated with this intervention. Specifically, this literature review developed
an overview of the findings of prior research regarding ELT programs’ (a) set-up and
focus; (b) reasons and objective; (c) formats and models; (d) funding options; and (e)
effectiveness and/or problems with implementing and sustaining the intervention.
Focus on Extended Learning Time (ELT) Programs
Defining ELT
Public schools across the country are extending learning time beyond the
traditional school hours to advance student achievement and attain NCLB’s educational
objectives in a timely manner (Yell, 2006). In the era of NCLB education is not only
teaching students about the core subject areas; but it also requires teachers to design
lessons to help students’ development, socially and emotionally. Literally, ELT has
become the use of more time in the day, week, or year to expand the scope of learning
beyond basic proficiency in reading, language arts, and mathematics (Center for
American Progress [CAP], 2010; Hopkins, 2007). Conceptually, “expanding learning
time in school has become a core strategy of the national education reform agenda as
policymakers and educators recognize that the standard school calendar does not fit many
students’ needs” (CAP, 2010, “Expanded Learning Time Leads,” para. 2).
13
Across the United States, schools have been examining different approaches to
help their student population improve academically, socially, and emotionally. One way
schools are trying to help students improve in these areas involves extended hours for
learning through remediation and tutoring by establishing ELT programs with an
advanced scope for instructional content. Kathleen Traphagen, a principal and consultant
for developing ELT programs, suggests that these programs:
provide instruction in academic and enrichment content to students, professional development for teachers, and mental and physical health services to students. They engage in parent outreach and involvement. And they play a key role in the governance, funding, policy development, and pedagogical practice of the school. (CAP, 2010, “Expanded Learning Time Leads,” para. 3)
ELT is not solely the lengthening of the school day. Committing to an ELT
program involves restructuring the day as part of comprehensive school reforms
(Hopkins, 2007). To guide student development, the adopted programs not only rely on
sources found within the school, but also resources outside the school (Hopkins, 2007).
Schools may form partnerships with local businesses or institutions of higher learning.
The primary purpose of these partnerships is to increase the number of resources
available to the students (Hopkins, 2007). Additionally, these partnerships do not only
benefit the schools; the partners and their employees often benefit from the new schedule
established for the extended day program (Jones, 1995). The established hours for the
ELT program may align with work hours to improve parental attendance at school events
(Jones, 1995). Likewise, a more favorable schedule is created by having an ELT
program that allows the parents of the students who work for the business partner to stay
at work, which provides the business partner with another benefit from collaborating with
the school (Jones, 1995).
14
Primarily, the purpose of these partnerships is to increase the number of resources
available to the students (Hopkins, 2007). Successful examples of how schools can
increase the resources available to students through community partnerships is evidenced
throughout the country in the partnerships formed with Sylvan Learning Center, which
provides tutoring services for the local districts’ students. This partnership has been
extremely effective for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), wherein a
pilot program was created to provide learning assistance for students in the district who
are enrolled in grades 7-12 (Sylvan Learning, 2009). As the organizations collaborate to
provide extra math help to students, Sylvan and the LAUSD work together to create
resources that are designed to help advance students’ achievement levels (Sylvan
Learning, 2009).
As it occurs with the start of any new program or initiative, it is important to
consider the reason and evidence that would support the adoption of extended day
programs. Christopher Gabrieli (2009) reported, “evidence suggests expanded learning
time can narrow the achievement gap while expanding opportunities for all students”
(para. 8). Further, when schools start programs to help narrow the achievement gap, they
attempt to formulate academic improvement efforts that will best help their specific
student population (Gabrieli, 2009). To attain this, each school designs its program based
on the data procured from the different assessments administered throughout the school
year (Gabrieli, 2009). Likewise, each ELT program’s format and objectives must reflect
the needs and interests of each school’s student community.
15
ELT Program Objectives
The explanation that “more time is needed” is prevalent when educators are asked
why these programs are necessary in schools. When several schools in Massachusetts
implemented programs providing ELT, Governor Patrick said, “when we identify things
that work for our children -- like more time for teaching and learning -- we have an
obligation as leaders to provide the strongest support that we can” (as cited by Guarino,
2007, “10 Schools to Launch,” para. 3). The objectives of the extra time for learning
that students receive, either during the school day or outside of traditional school hours,
are integral components of ELT program development (Silva, 2010).
It has been explained that providing more time for student learning, not teacher
planning, is essential (Silva, 2010). Specifically, the amount of time allotted for student
learning influences how the teacher structures instructional plans (Silva, 2010). By
allocating more time for student learning, teachers can create lessons that have more
potential to be effective for the individual learners (Silva, 2010). Extended time enables
the incorporation of better strategies to facilitate successful learning and mastery of the
required content (Silva, 2010).
Another area to consider for ELT programming is the focus of the program and/or
objectives to attain in the added time. As previously noted, many of these programs not
only target improving the academic success of the students, but they also attempt to help
students in other areas that benefit lasting learning (Johnson-Staub & Traphagen, 2010).
In addition to helping students in the core subjects, many programs offer students the
opportunity to participate in enrichment activities (Johnson-Staub & Traphagen, 2010).
Enrichment activities offered to students can include yoga and other fitness activities,
16
expressive arts, sports, and/or other competitive activities (Marymount, n.d.). Through
these programs and activities, ELT programs provide opportunities to (a) build academics
using tutoring, homework support and club activities; (b) expand students’ interests and
mastery of non-academic skills; while (c) advance social skills and esteem (Marymount,
n.d.). The designing of a program that utilizes many different formats and enhances the
ability of the school to “help meet educational goals and prepare young people for the
workforce” is a goal of ELT programs (Greifner, 2007, “Panel Favors Extended View,”
para. 2).
Beyond enrichment, students and parents may find that ELT programs avail
opportunities for the family to become more engaged in the learning process (Johnson-
Staub & Traphagen, 2010). These program services can help strengthen the family unit
(Riley, 1998). Programs can provide information and active support that the family can
use to ensure the student is focused and prepared the application and eventual transition
into postsecondary education (Riley, 1998). Special programming and support may be
provided for college-bound learners, including workshops addressing how to improve the
students’ chance of being accepted to and successful in college.
Creating programs that students want to attend is important (Riley, 1998). Prior
studies have shown that the time teenagers spend alone, before the parents get home from
work, is when they are at the greatest risk of falling behind academically (Riley, 1998).
This is attributed to the teens’ tendency to use the unsupervised time to participate in
activities that can impede their growth, socially, mentally, or academically (Riley, 1998).
This period of time has been documented as a “window of risk” due to the fact that it
encompasses the highest rates of teen crime, violence, substance abuse, and other
17
dangerous activities (Riley, 1998). Providing supervised and engaging activities for
teens, especially during this afterschool window of risk, has been reported to have a
positive impact on diverting teens from engaging in high-risk behaviors; therefore,
programs can offer services specifically intended to prevent drug use and violence (Riley,
1998). Concurrently, provision of alternatives that students find engaging can also deter
high-risk behaviors. These alternatives can include character education, community
service, and other redirection away from high-risk potentials.
Through community partnerships, the ELT program may offer different health
services for students and their families in addition to the academic services being offered
to students (Johnson-Staub & Traphagen, 2010). The focus of these health services could
address the physical and mental health of students and, possibly, their families (Owen,
2010). For example, at New York City Public School #5, students can visit a local clinic
which “conducts physical exams, administers vaccinations, and treats first-aid
emergencies […as well as] a host of chronic problems, such as asthma, that afflict inner-
city children” (Maeroff, 1998, “Free to Focus,” para. 13). The Children’s Aid Society
covers roughly $900 annually for the P.S. #5 ELT participants’ health services (Maeroff,
1998).
ELT programs that offer different ways the student can focus on academics and
other interests can foster positive experiences for growth and learning (Marymount, n.d.).
Each new encounter and experience creates “new and stimulating platforms for children
to develop their confidence, build self-esteem, master new skills, and make new friends”
(Marymount, n.d., “Enrichment Classes,” para. 1). Ultimately, the extended time
provides growth and learning opportunities for everyone involved.
18
Reasons for Adopting ELT Programs
A recent report in Education Week highlighted trends related to the origins of
concerns about learning time (Gewertz, 2009). Specifically noted was the 1983
publication from the National Commission on Excellence in Education entitled, A Nation
at Risk. This report expressed the belief that schools were lacking adequate learning time
(Gewertz, 2009). In 2009, President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education,
Arne Duncan, reiterated the belief that students need more time working on school-
related activities to improve academic achievement. Both of these requests for more time
are cited by proponents as the origin of ELT programs (Gewertz, 2009). Proponents of
ELT programs assert that insufficient time during the regular school day is the primary
reason why schools might institute an ELT program (Gabrieli & Goldstein, 2008;
Gewertz, 2009). Many schools indicate that there is inadequate time within the regular
school day to educate students using the proper techniques and lessons to develop
academic proficiency in the different subject areas (Gabrieli & Goldstein, 2008).
Beginning an ELT program can provide teachers with more time to work with the
students on the material introduced during the regular school day (Bray, 2008). Adding
this time also provides opportunity for remediation, expounding concepts, and
enrichment related to the topics covered in class (Bray, 2008). The additional time to
cover curricular content enables the teacher to decide how to best use the time to improve
students’ academic achievement in different academic areas like math and reading (Bray,
2008). Again, the time provides learning opportunities that can be used to enhance
differentiation, access multiple learning styles, and/or provide cross-curricular
instruction.
19
Reading is a specific content area for which adopting ELT programs has been
found beneficial for helping to advance students towards proficiency (Kim & White,
2009). Schools with a large high-risk student population, specifically low-income
students and English language learners (ELL), have found a reading achievement gap
between these student groups and students from higher socioeconomic classes (Kim &
White, 2009). Research has shown that when students work on vocabulary and reading
comprehension in an ELT programs, they tend to benefit and demonstrate direct increases
in reading ability (Kim & White, 2009). Further, focus on advancing reading
comprehension skills has fostered positive gains in other reading focus areas, such as
writing (Kim & White, 2009). Gains in these areas, as well as strides minimizing
achievement gaps between student groups, have given schools the opportunity to raise
standardized test scores and progress towards attainment of Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP).
Another typical reason for expanding the school day involves the potential to help
students improve emotionally and socially. While schools with ELT programs have more
time to help students in low-performing groups, schools can also offer non-academic
educational services within the additional time (Owen, 2010). These opportunities may
include the aforementioned health and other mental health services (Owen, 2010). While
offering services that target awareness about health and healthy living, these programs
can also broaden students’ knowledge about available community services (Friedman,
2010). In addition, collaboration with community partners can avail a variety of learning
and service activities in a manner that can have lasting health outcomes (Friedman,
2010). Schools may find that offering non-academic and academic services together, has
20
greater influence helping students’ achievement. Dr. Gloria Santiago, chair of the
trustees at a charter school in New Jersey explained that “the combination of an expanded
day and the multiservice community school model enables students to succeed because it
allows the [use of] school time to support the development of the whole” learner and their
community (as cited by Owen, 2010, para. 11).
Reasons for Dropping ELT Programs
Even though there are studies supporting the establishment and continuation of
ELT programs, opponents of ELT programs provide reasons why this program does not
help schools (Marisa, n.d.). A common reason some oppose ELT programs is that they
drain schools of funding, which means the schools would have to eliminate other
programs to keep an ELT program running (Marisa, n.d.). Inadequate funding for school
districts can affect small districts like the one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, which had to
eliminate their extended day program due to financial reasons (Marisa, n.d.). In addition
to small school districts feeling the financial impact of ELT programs, states like New
Mexico have noticed how the financial impact of ELT programs influence budgets for
their public schools (Marisa, n.d.). Many states have to cut programs outside the
traditional school day due to the lack of available funding (Marisa, n.d.). Another place
that has experienced the financial impact when creating an ELT program is the state of
Massachusetts (Cruz, 2009). In Massachusetts, to compensate for the financial burden,
schools that implement an ELT programs receive an additional $1,300 per student; this
increased cost can weigh on the state’s annual budget (Cruz, 2009).
Along with not having the financial support to keep ELT programs viable, there
are other reasons that schools give for not starting or continuing ELT programs. One
21
reason schools give for not having such programs is that the school does not have enough
qualified teachers or mentors from the school community to help provide support to the
students who would be in the program (Marisa, n.d.). In addition, opponents of ELT
programs say these programs may not be as necessary if schools emphasized improving
the education students receive from all teachers during the day versus training teachers to
provide effective lessons in ELT programs (McLoone, 2011). Critics say that training to
improve teaching during the school day versus training for ELT programs would help
improve the education that all students receive, versus only helping those taking part in
the ELT program (McLoone, 2011).
Theoretical Foundation
Some proponents of ELT programs claim they raise the academic expectations
and difficulty of school (Cahill & Hughes, 2010). The increase in the rigor attributed to
ELT programs can have a positive effect on the academic achievement of students in low
performing schools and for students who come from disadvantaged situations (Cahill &
Hughes, 2010). By creating programs with ELT that increase academic rigor, research
indicates that these programs can “dramatically reduce school dropout rates, and increase
graduation and college readiness” (Cahill & Hughes, 2010, para. 7). These programs
provide students with more than just time outside of the traditional school day to learn
instructional content; the increased rigor can improve the chances for students to excel
academically in their current schooling and subsequent education (Cahill & Hughes,
2010).
Opportunity for instructional differentiation is a highly valuable aspect of ELT
programs. Specifically, the individualized help provided during ELT programs is an
22
advantage and often necessity for many students (Odder, 2009). In ELT programs, it is
sometimes possible to offer the struggling student one-to-one instructional opportunities
with their classroom teacher or another certified educator (Odder, 2009). This one-to-one
instruction enables teachers to provide direct help that focuses on the student’s area(s) of
weakness and learning needs (Odder, 2009). Individualized attention provides the
teacher with necessary time to help the student to become more proficient (Odder, 2009).
Having the opportunity for individualized instruction within an ELT program generates
potential for advancing understanding of the classroom instructional content and,
subsequent, positive impact on low performing school (Odder, 2009).
A primary concern is the reality that there is not enough time in the school day for
students to receive the help needed to become academically proficient (Gabrieli, 2010).
The ability to add time to the school day enables the school to meet the students’ needs
by being able to differentiate instruction (Gabrieli, 2010). In this manner, schools can
also use the time availed for helping struggling students, for instruction focused on
developing the proficiency of high achieving students in other areas (Gabrieli, 2010).
Overall, studies have shown that for schools to utilize the concept of time to
enhance students’ academic progress, they “need a minimum of 300 hours each year —
or an additional one hour and 45 minutes each day — to establish a balanced program
and drive deep change” (Gabrieli, 2010, para. 29). Even though the concept of adding
time may seem simple, it is essential that the school develop focused priorities for the
manner the extra time will be allocated to extend their educational programs (Gabrieli,
2010). The added time must be quality time (Greifner, 2007).
23
Conceptually, the need for programs providing ELT manifests as objectives to
advance (a) achievement through rigor, individualized learning environments, and
programs with remediation or enrichment; (b) social and emotional education to diminish
potential for high-risk behaviors; (c) provision of arts and athletics programs; and/or (d)
provision of services based on community needs and stakeholders’ expertise. These
programs are important for the non-academic growth a student makes as he/she passes
through each school year (Greifner, 2007). According to the Collaborative for Academic,
Social, and Emotional Learning, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, these types of
programs helped increase student self-confidence which improves the student’s feelings
on attending and succeeding in school (Greifner, 2007). Being able to develop esteem
and community allegiance during an extended day program is possible because the extra
time allows the teacher to nurture the individual and the community-based needs of the
learners (Jahlem, 2001). Gaining this additional time enables the educator to nurture
students’ emotional development, which can make the learning processes at school more
enjoyable and rewarding for the students (Jahlem, 2001).
Methods for ELT Programs
Development of effective extended learning time programs ensures that the
available approaches will serve and benefit all learners in the school community.
Research suggests it is important to include several components for success with the ELT
format. From within, the school must make sure that the faculty receives proper training
and each faculty member is qualified to provide the assigned instruction (Education
Commission of the States [ECS], 2010). Likewise, faculty members need to make sure
that the instructional materials used in the program enhance the learning opportunities for
24
the students (ECS, 2010). Finally, there must be established procedures to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program (ECS, 2010). Outside of the school, the developers of the
program need to include the parents of the students in the program and create
partnerships with outside institutions and businesses (ECS, 2010). Ensuring that the
school and/or school district effectively executes these attributes when creating the
format of the extended day program can enhance the chances of the program succeeding,
subsequently, which in turns raises the likelihood of ensuring the students’ improvement
(ECS, 2010).
Most ELT programs help students focus on particular areas of weakness but there are
programs where the design is flexible (Hunter, 2006). These programs do not only focus
on the core subject areas; the design of these programs includes help in other academic-
oriented areas (Hunter, 2006). For example, Duluth High School located in Duluth,
Georgia, utilizes the library staff and teachers to help students with school projects
(Hunter, 2006). In this manner, the faculty support helps advance students’ reading,
research, writing, and presentation skills, while the student also learns how to use the
available technology (Hunter, 2006). While this program is similar to other programs by
advancing students’ core academics, it also helps the students learn how to use resources
that may be accessible outside of school (Hunter, 2006). In addition, working on these
projects, the students have the opportunity to help small, local business owners create
promotional items. This program is an example of how an ELT program helps students
prepare for their future, while assisting the local community.
Distance Learning
When designing an ELT program, a school needs to remember that the program
25
must fit the needs of the students the program is designed to serve (Gabrieli, 2009). This
means that programs used at different schools will function differently to ensure the
program fits the needs of the school’s students (Gabrieli, 2009). This is highly
recognizable when exploring the various ways schools are implementing ELT programs.
One approach involves using distance learning. Schools that have the technology, or
student access to the needed technology, are able to use distance learning to help improve
academic achievement in a variety of settings (Gabrieli, 2009). These different settings
can include the use of distance learning during the before and after school hours. This
type of learning can also enhance the different types of learning strategies used during
school hours (Gabrieli, 2009). Not only does distance learning enable schools to
differentiate the instruction and assessments to better meet the needs of the student, but it
also provides greater flexibility regarding both the location and the timeline for students’
completion of the additional work (Cavanaugh, 2009). The flexibility of distance
learning also enables the school student to become more self-directed and pace
him/herself to ensure better outcomes (Cavanaugh, 2009). The ability of using distance
learning in ELT programs has shown that the flexible learning environment allows
students the time to improve his/her academic standing (Cavanaugh, 2009).
Alternative In-school Scheduling
Even though most ELT programs rely on using time outside of the normal school
day, it is possible to offer extended learning time within normal school hours. Offering
more time for students to learn the material taught in academic classes is possible when
schools alter the structure of the school day (Metzker, 2003). This restructuring requires
extending the time students spend in the core academic classes by reducing the time spent
26
in non-core or elective classes (Metzker, 2003). Schools can achieve this by using daily
schedules that integrate block scheduling, rotating schedules, and/or semester rotations
(Metzker, 2003). When schools expand the time students spend in the academic classes,
it becomes even more important that the teacher provide properly structured instruction
that fully engages the student in the work and content of the lesson (Metzker, 2003).
Summer Classes
Summer programs are another way schools use ELT programs to help students
improve academically and physically. Elev8 is an organization that works with public
schools in different parts of the country. Currently, Elev8 focuses on providing programs
in the public middle and high schools in under-served areas in Chicago, Illinois,
Baltimore, Maryland, Los Angeles, California, and in school systems through out New
Mexico. These schools receive academic enrichment programs in the areas of math,
science, language arts, athletics, and/or music (Elev8, 2010). The Elev8 program
includes health-oriented lessons, teaching students how to eat nutritiously (Elev8, 2010).
An ELT program offered by Elev8 during the summer months enables students to
develop necessary learning and study skills for academic success during the school year.
Along with Elev8, other states have worked on establishing summer programs to
help students become more proficient in the content areas of reading in math. Since the
mid-1990s, states like Kentucky and Arkansas enacted legislation that have helped
establish summer programs to help students in need of remediation in the areas of math
and reading (Christie, 2003). Legislation enacted in these states want schools to place an
emphasis on helping students who are in need of academic remediation rather than
27
forcing students to sit in the class when it may not be necessary to take it during the
summer months (Christie, 2003).
Saturday School
Shiloh Point Elementary School, in Georgia, offers an ELT program for its
students on Saturdays (Forsyth County Schools [CS], 2009). This voluntary program
provides free, weekly sessions at 12-week intervals (Forsyth CS, 2009). The overall goal
of the program is to help students improve their skill level in mathematics and language
arts (Forsyth CS, 2009).
While many schools are focused on remediation, some ELT programs address
enrichment, gifted, or alternatively focused programs. Georgia State University (2009)
has collaborated with the state’s department of education, since 1975, to provide Saturday
School learning opportunities. The classes are for Kindergarten through eighth grade
learners, specifically for enrichment and gifted in the applied and fine arts, mathematics,
and sciences (GSU, 2009). The program name incorporates the focus for “Scholars and
Leaders” (GSU, 2009, para. 1). GSU (2009) touted the success of their efforts to
contribute to this community of learners by providing year-round multi-week workshops.
Conversely, the Saturday school program director found many disheartened parents and
learners (GSU, 2009). The director, Kestner, asserted, “while most public schools have
plenty of programs for remedial and special education students, there isn’t the same
emphasis on education for gifted students. […all students need opportunity] to achieve
and excel up to their abilities” (GSU, 2009, “School on Saturday?,” para. 7-8).
The Principals’ Partnership issued a research brief that commended the schools
nationwide who were partnered with local organizations to provide Saturday School
28
learning opportunities (Walker, 2009). This report explored the primary focuses of ELT
programs on Saturdays, citing “enrichment/academic support, course credit/absentee
make-up, and discipline” included in the research brief was commendation of the GSU
program and many other programs outlined in this current review of literature (Walker,
2009, “Summary,” para. 1).
Extended Day Programs (EDP)
An extended day program is one model of an extended learning time program.
Extended day programs are an extension of the school day. An extended day program
may take place before or after school hours.
After school programs. Public schools often offer EDPs after regular school
hours (Saint Paul Public Schools [SPPS], 2009). One school system, located in
Minnesota, assessed what their extended day programs should offer by identifying the
needs of their students (SPPS, 2009). Deciding what needs the program needs to meet
for the students can be decided by looking at standardized test scores, discussions with
teachers, students, and parents (A. Loureiro, A, personal communication, December 15,
2010). Opportunities made available through this program include helping seniors
prepare for tests that are mandatory for graduation (SPPS, 2009). Additionally, many
high schools offer opportunities several times a week after school that allow students to
recover credits not earned due to failing grades (SPPS, 2009).
Another program run by the City School District (CSD) of Albany, in New York,
offers services for students after the school day ends. Any student in the district is
eligible to participate in this free program (CSD-Albany, n.d.). There is no cost to
participants because the school system receives money from different local companies
29
and organizations through partnerships and grants, which allows the schools to pay for
supplies, training, and salaries (CSD-Albany, n.d.). Students participating in this
program receive help with homework, additional academic support, as well as the
opportunity to take part in non-academic activities (CSD-Albany, n.d.). Some after
school programs include supervision in extended hours for childcare purposes.
While many programs are free, there are school districts throughout America that
must charge fees for participation in the extended day program. School systems across
the country to extended day programs due to a lack of funding in the general budget.
Fees charged by school districts for extended day programs allows schools to have
money to pay for supplies, teacher training, utilities, and salaries for those working for
the extended day program. For example, Los Alamitos Unified School District (USD), in
California, charges a fee but also offers some financial support for families in need (LA-
USD, n.d.).
Tarpon Springs Middle School (TSMS), in Florida, offers an after school
extended day program for every day of the week, except Wednesdays (TSMS, n.d.).
Guidance counselors at the school recommend students who are failing any academic
classes (TSMS, n.d.). Students taking part in this program receive help with homework
assignments, projects, as well as study and test taking skills (TSMS, n.d.). Similar to
other schools with extended day programs, the goal for the EDP is to assist participating
students in their efforts to become more successful (TSMS, n.d.).
Oakland Unified School District, located in California, has two middle schools
that use an extended day program (Citizen Schools, 2010). The program enrolls sixth
graders at both schools as well as students who are considered at-risk students in seventh
30
and eighth grades (Citizen Schools, 2010). This program is opened to all students who
are enrolled at the district’s schools (Citizen Schools, 2010). Students involved in this
program attend school for an additional three hours a day outside of the normal working
hours for the program(Citizen Schools, 2010). Academically, students receive additional
support processing core subject content (Citizen Schools, 2010). These students also
participate in team activities to help advance language proficiency (Citizen Schools,
2010). Finally, students involved in the program receive advice, which helps the student
develop a foundation for success in middle school and beyond (Citizen Schools, 2010).
This additional support focuses on providing support for students who intend to attend
college in the future (Citizen Schools, 2010). Outside of academics, the Oakland students
have opportunity to learn other professions by working with adults, serving as their
apprentices in different workplaces throughout the local community (Citizen Schools,
2010). This extended day format not only allows the individual schools help students
improve in specific area(s) of need, but the program can help students learn about other
positive endeavors to pursue outside of school.
Before school programs. Zero period, an extra period before the school day, is
another way in which schools have provided an extended day format to help students
improve academically. During this time, the school provides remediation, enrichment,
test preparation, or even mandatory study halls. This option, which occurs before the
typical first period, is referred to as a zero period. This extended day time ensures that a
teacher is available to provide extra help for students to make-up lost credits due to
failing grades. It also gives students the ability to take other elective courses that they
cannot fit in the traditional schedule. This is important so the student does not have to
31
give up the opportunity to take other classes during normal school hours (Albertville City
School System, 2009). Enrollment and attendance requirements vary based on site
policies and objectives (Lamperes, 2005). “While some schools allow students to take
part in the program, other schools do require students to take part in zero period”
(Lamperes, 2005, p. 63). Zero period attendance may also be disciplinary in nature to
address attendance, missed work, or poor grades (Lamperes, 2005).
EDP at study site. The extended day program for the district in which this study
was conducted used both the before school and after chool models to provide extended
learning time, depending on how each individual middle school chose to structure the
format. The EDP is a noncompulsory program available to middle school students in
sixth, seventh and eighth grades throughout the district who earned the lowest test scores
on the reading and math portions of the CRCT (i.e. failing < 800) the previous school
year. Ultimately, the purpose behind the extended day program was to help students
improve in the academic areas where they were below grade-level proficiency standards.
Some of the students invited to participate (on the basis of their low test scores) chose not
to attend. The students and their parents made this decision; participation was not
mandatory.
The students who participated in the EDP met for one hour - twice per week,
before school or after school. Participants who qualified for only reading or math help
received two additional hours of instruction in the EDP each week to remediate their
deficiencies in the given subject. Students who qualified for both reading and math help
also attended the EDP program twice per week; however, the instructional time was
divided between the two subjects, so students received one additional hour of instruction
32
in each subject each week. The EDP of the district is structured to begin in the fall and
end about a week before the CRCT is administered in the spring.
Funding for ELT Programs
To help implement ELT programs, schools must look at different ways to fund the
programming. Funding for these programs can become expensive. The schools adopting
an ELT program will need to provide money for teachers, support staff, materials,
training, and operational costs. This increase in the costs for services offered outside of
the normal school day means schools must become creative and proactive in securing
funding. One option for schools to fund ELT programs is application for grants from the
21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC). While the amount a school or
school district can request from this program is open-ended, in 2006 the average grant
approved was for $310,685 (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). This funding initiative began
with the passage of NCLB legislation in 2002 (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). Through this
resource, schools with a high percentage of low-income students that demonstrate poor
academic performance become eligible for grants through 21st CCLC (Afterschool
Alliance, n.d.). Schools can use money received from 21st CCLC grants in a variety of
ways. Approximately two-thirds of the money school districts receive is used for
elementary programs, while the rest is used for programs on the middle and high school
levels (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). Specifically, schools can apply monies received from
the 21st CCLC grants towards helping students become proficient and master the
standards set forth by the state where the school is located (Afterschool Alliance n.d.).
The ELT programs can use awarded funds for academic enrichment, as well as “drug and
violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, and recreation programs,
33
technology education programs, and character education programs” (Afterschool
Alliance, n.d., para. 3).
In addition to exploring potential grant awarding entities, schools could direct
efforts towards developing partnerships with community-based stakeholders. This would
specifically involve collaboration with local businesses and organizations that would
assist with securing and/or directly providing funding (Friedman, 2010). Working with
local groups enables the schools to secure proper funding for their programs while,
simultaneously, generating depth within their ELT program offerings (Friedman, 2010).
The collaboration between schools and local businesses or other stakeholders is often
mutually beneficial (Friedman, 2010). In addition to funding resources, other valuable
resources, such as the staff and the product of the outside group, may also be available to
the school (Friedman, 2010). Similarly, schools can rent the facilities to local
organizations during non-school hours (e.g. religious, service, and athletic groups) (T.
McClelland, Personal communication, September 22, 2010).
Along with receiving money from grant programs and working with local
businesses and a school’s PTSA, some institutions have decided to charge families for
participation in the extended day program. The amount and ways in which schools
charge students’ families for taking part in the extended day program can vary from
school to school across the United States. One example is White Bear Lake Area
Schools, located in Minnesota (White Bear Lake Area Schools, n.d.). In this school
district, funding is provided by charging a standard daily rate (i.e. $9.75) and a drop-in
rate (i.e. $15.00) for students who take part in their extended day program (White Bear
Lake Area Schools, n.d.). In addition to charging students for daily attendance, other
34
districts fund their program by charging participating students a monthly rate. Fort Bend
Independent School District, located in Sugar Land, Texas, charges a monthly rate (Fort
Bend Independent School District, n.d.). Students who only take part in the morning
program are charged $50 a month and students participating in the afternoon program are
charged $160 a month (Fort Bend Independent School District, n.d.). In addition to a
monthly charge, students are charged $20 extra for EDP during holidays, early release
days, and staff development days (Fort Bend Independent School District, n.d.).
Prior Research Addressing ELT Programs
When considering the findings from different studies, experts in education
indicate that there are pros and cons related to ELT programs. Specifically, it is
important to consider the different program approaches and the use of time within each
format or site-based program. Compiling the insights from different studies makes it
possible to begin to assess the perceived effectiveness of an ELT program. There are
some critical concepts to consider in coming to this assessment.
When analyzing the available data, one approach assesses how much time the
student receives for further study in core subject areas (Framingham Public Schools,
n.d.). Another approach considers how much of the time the student and teacher dedicate
to developing detailed knowledge and understanding of the subjects’ content
(Framingham Public Schools, n.d.). Examination of the data allows for the formation of
an accurate perspective of the potentials for achievement that can be directly attributed to
the additional time for learning within an ELT program (Mid-continental Research for
Education and Learning [McREL], 2010).
35
Proponents of ELT programs
This increased time for learning has been demonstrated to have a positive
influence on students’ academic achievement in the areas of reading and math (McREL,
2010). Specifically, the data reveals benefits when students are able to spend more time
focused on processing for content mastery (McREL, 2010). Most importantly, the
benefits are attributed to the direct support and assistance of educators who have
additional time to review lessons and provide more detail, introduce different
perspectives, generate opportunities for reflection, and encourage further practice
applying learned concepts to meaningful experiences (McREL, 2010). In this manner,
ELT programs manage to provide an opportunity for instructional differentiation, which
fosters greater learning opportunities aligned with constructivist models.
The effectiveness of the additional learning time and the benefits therein, was
demonstrated in a study run by WestEd researchers. This study documented how the
teacher-student relationships in ELT programs influence student achievement (McREL,
2010). Conclusively, the data has demonstrated the impact of the additional interaction
between teacher and student (McREL, 2010). The data revealed that the interaction
resulted in a higher level of student engagement, which had a positive influence on
students’ performance (McREL, 2010).
Another area educational researchers have examined is the influence of extended
learning within programs that provide academic assistance during the summer months.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL, 2006), summer
programs have helped students in three specific areas. The analysis examined the impact
of ELT programs which provide remediation compared to those that focus on enrichment
36
or acceleration. The outcomes documented “equally positive impacts on children's
knowledge and skills” (NCSL, 2006, para. 3). To help ensure students attain these
academic advances, NCSL (2006) delved in to identify the component generating this
success. Ultimately, NCSL (2006) pointed out that when teachers have the chance to
teach in individual or small group situations, the data consistently reveals that this
arrangement enables teachers to have the most significant impact on students’ learning.
In addition, NCSL (2006) reported that involving the students’ parents in the ELT
summer program helps students to improve academically.
ELT program Opposition
While there are studies that advocate ELT programs, there is also opposition.
Primarily, the expressed concerns focus on the fiscal issues associated with adding
programs outside of the traditional school day or calendar (Bechtel & Evans, 1997).
According to Bechtel and Evans (1997), a review of data compiled from multiple studies
highlighted the financial drain these programs have on the school districts. In one case, a
school system noticed that an extended day program could cost at least $9,000 dollars per
teacher. Bechtel and Evans (1997) reported that, “districts could anticipate a 25%
increase routine operating costs to cover salaries, materials, and utilities” (p. 4). Totaling
the extra costs for public schools across the country, Bechtel and Evans (1997) reported
that these programs could cost taxpayers more than $20 billion a year beyond the
regularly allocated funds. Summarily, these extra costs may force school districts to
request raising the taxes for citizens in their locality (Bechtel & Evans, 1997).
Unfortunately, the mixed results found by past programs may have contributed to
the difficulties encountered when trying to get approval from people living in the school
37
district (Bechtel & Evans, 1997). Mixed results about ELT program effectiveness
appeared in a study conducted in 1998 by WestED researchers, Aronson, Zimmerman,
and Carlos; these findings indicated contradictory outcomes regarding the effectiveness
of ELT programs (McREL, 2010). In this study, the researchers found no connection
between student achievement and the number of hours spent in school (McREL, 2010).
However, the study did show a relationship between student achievement and the
students’ engagement level (McREL, 2010). As mentioned previously, ELT programs
were praised by McREL researchers with the advancement of students’ engagement
during the individual and small group attention provided in the program. Conversely, a
study of an extended day program in Miami-Dade County, Florida, reported that
programs providing extra help outside of school hours might not always be the type of
assistance the students need to foster academic improvement (Goodwin, 2009). Another
study in 2009 showed that eighth graders receiving additional help actually scored lower
academically than students not participating in an ELT program (Goodwin, 2009). These
concerns highlight the importance of regularly assessing the perceived and actual impact
of existing ELT programs to document the outcomes. Clearly, the regular and thorough
report of program outcomes could be pertinent for the school and district in the process of
determining whether to maintain, revise, or cancel the existing program.
Summary of Literature Reviewed
Gabrieli (2009) reported that an ELT program “is not a one-size-fits-all
innovation” (para. 8). This statement is highly relevant when examining the varied
formats available for extending learning time. This perspective is equally important
when assessing the diverse services a public school could offer its students. Prior studies
38
and recommendations suggest the necessity of studying both the perceived and actual
impact of the different styles and formats of ELT programs provided in public schools
throughout the United States. The variation in type, style, format, and emphasis found in
ELT programs is a site-based decision. This is attributed to the understanding that each
school focuses programming efforts based on the available data indicating how they need
to serve their individual students while satisfying the needs of the entire local student
community. In addition, the program approaches vary depending upon the available
services, resources, and expertise from within the same community. To date, research
and literature do not suggest one single format or service type that works best for all
students. Likewise, no single form of ELT program has emerged as a preferred effort. It
has been concluded that what works for one school may not work for another. With this
idea in mind, it is important to remember that each school must assess the needs and
interests of their students. Consistent with implementation of all educational innovations,
it is not possible to adopt simply the next great idea for an ELT program.
Not jumping to implement the next, new, great idea is important to recall when
judging or formulating the structure of an ELT program. While there is research showing
that some programs may work for a school or district, there are also studies that report
failure after the implementation of ELT programs. Schools need to assess the data from
their own program to determine what works best for their students. However, the
functionality of ELT programs has been directly associated with the rapport developed
between staff and students as well as among classmates.
The variety of programs and variations found in prior research reinforces how
pertinent the individual assessment is for documenting the students’ academic
39
achievement in the core subjects. Quite simply, students have many needs and the
traditional structure of the school day may not be enough to satisfy these needs. As the
C.S. Mott Foundation: New Day for Learning Advisory Board wrote, “Without a broader
view of learning, all American school-age children will be denied access to experiences
that will help them be successful lifelong learners” (Greifner, 2007, para 5.). Therefore,
this comprehensive review of literature has suggested the importance of assessing the
perceived and actual outcomes from the selected site’s ELT program. Any decision-
making about adopting, sustaining, modifying, or eliminating ELT programs must
consider available data from similar sites explicitly for ideas regarding long-term
expectations and sustainability of the program instituted. Ultimately, only regular
comprehensive evaluation of the specific site’s outcomes will be effective for enabling
students to attain their best potentials in learning throughout school and life-long
endeavors.
40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This ex post facto study used a quantitative research design to compare student
achievement in reading and math as measured by the state standardized test (i.e., Georgia
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test). This assessment provided information about
the measurable impact of participation in the site-based extended day program on
students’ achievement in reading and math achievement.
The comparison of the test data involved four representative student groups. The
sample groups were drawn from students eligible to participate in the district’s extended
day learning program, who either accepted or declined participation. The quantitative
data for this study included archived student CRCT results from the 2009-2010 school
year. Differences in the mean test scores from the reading and math CRCT for the
different groups were compared using a t-test at the standard level of significance, 0.05.
This assessed the effectiveness of the intervention for eligible students who participated
in the free, noncompulsory academic support program.
Selection of Participants
The participants for this study included approximately 200 students enrolled in
sixth through eighth grades in the Georgia school district selected for this study.
Specifically, stratified sampling was used to select the participants from those students
who were invited to take part in the district’s noncompulsory extended day learning
program. The students who received an invitation to participate in the extended day
program were those who earned the lowest test scores on the reading and math portions
41
of the CRCT (i.e. failing < 800) from each of the middle schools in the district. Other
students on the borderline of failure (i.e., +1-3 questions) may also have been invited to
participate in the extended day program based enrollment availability at their specific
middle school, but these students were not included as participants of this study. Only
those students who Did Not Meet (DNM) the expected level of proficiency on the
Reading and Math CRCT tests were included in this study to ensure a fair comparison
when measuring the possible impact of the extended day program. Ultimately, the
purpose behind the extended day program was to help students improve in the academic
areas where they were below grade-level proficiency standards. Some of the students
invited chose not to attend. The students and their parents made this decision;
participation was not mandatory.
The group of 200 students selected for this study were initially divided into two
different groups based on the subject (i.e., reading or math) of the remedial instruction for
which they qualified for help. The first group of students included approximately100
students who received an invitation to participate in the extended day learning program
for help in the area of reading. The second group included approximately 100 students
who received an invitation to participate in the extended day learning program for help in
the area of math.
The subject area sample groups were further subdivided by their decision to
accept or decline the invitation to participate in the program. A randomized data set was
used to generate representative samples of the students who accepted the invitation to
participate in the extended day program for reading help (Group A) and the students who
refused the invitation to participate in the extended day program for reading help (Group
42
B). Likewise, a randomized data set was used to generate representative samples of the
students who accepted the invitation to participate in the extended day program for math
help (Group C) and the students who refused the invitation to participate in the extended
day program for math help (Group D). Each of these groups consisted of 50 students.
Instrumentation
All third through eighth grade students throughout the state of Georgia take a
standardized criterion-referenced competency test (CRCT) at the end of the school year
(GA-DOE, 2010a). The purpose of the CRCT is “to measure how well students acquire
the skills and knowledge described in the Georgia Performance Standards” (GA-DOE,
2010, para.1). At the time of the study, the CRCT had five sections in the core content
areas, which included reading English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social
studies. Both the reading and math tests were formatted similarly. The CRCT contained
“selected-response items only” (GA-DOE, 2010a, para. 4). The time allocated for test
completion ranged between 45-90 minutes. The standard allowed for 45 minutes per
subject; however, students with Individualized Education Plan (IEP) accommodations
might have been allotted additional time to complete the test (D. Price, Personal
communication, October 15, 2010). The CRCT was accepted as a consistent and reliable
measure of students’ academic progress related to the grade-specific curriculum taught
each year.
To ensure that the CRCT results in all subjects were considered reliable,
reliability testing must have shown that the scores have a range of 0.79 to 0.86 (Cox,
n.d.). In addition to making sure the test scores were reliable, the state of Georgia took
specific measures to make sure the results were valid (Cox, n.d.). Several steps were
43
involved to make sure the test questions and results for the CRCT were valid. First, the
test developers made sure that the person writing the questions for each test was qualified
in the content area of the specific test for which that person was writing questions (Cox,
n.d.). After the questions were written, the state of Georgia had curriculum experts and
teachers from around Georgia check the questions for alignment with the curricular
content (Cox, n.d.). During the assessment of the test questions, reviewers made certain
the questions were written (a) using grade-level appropriate language, (b) consistent with
the curricular content taught, and (c) that the questions were void of bias (Cox, n.d.). The
last step the Georgia Department of Education used to ensure validity was that the state’s
Testing Division met with a group of experts, known as Georgia’s Technical Committee
(TAC), once per quarter to continually examine how the CRCT was being developed and
reviewed (Cox, n.d.).
Reading CRCT. This study used the results from the Reading section of
Georgia’s CRCT from the Spring 2010 administration of the test. The 2010 Reading
CRCT scores were collected only for students included in the research data set. The
Reading portion of the CRCT contained 40 multiple-choice questions, for which students
received anywhere between 45 and 90 minutes to complete (D. Price, Personal
communication, October 15, 2010). The scores on the annual test were used to assess
ongoing learning progress and achievement.
Reading CRCT scores ranged from the low-700s into the mid-900s. Annually,
the target score for each subject varied (C. Allen, personal communication, December 16,
2010). The target Reading CRCT scores to demonstrate proficiency for the Spring 2010
administration was a minimum of 800 (Georgia Department of Education, 2010b).
44
Reading CRCT scores were reported in categories of Does Not Meet (DNM),
Meets (M), or Exceeds (E) the expected level of proficiency (Georgia Department of
Education, 2010b). Reading CRCT scores for middle grade students in 2010 were
categorized as DNM for any score below 800; M for scores 800 and 850; and E for scores
above 850 (Georgia Department of Education, 2010b). In 2010, the students who scored
below 800 (DNM) on the reading portions of the CRCT were invited to participate in the
noncompulsory intervention, the extended day program.
Mathematics CRCT. This study also used the results from the Mathematics
section of Georgia’s CRCT from the Spring 2010 administration of the test. The 2010
Mathematics CRCT scores were collected only for students in the research data set. The
mathematics portion of the CRCT contained 50 multiple-choice questions, which
students received between 45 and 90 minutes to complete (A. Brown, Personal
communication, October 16, 2010). The scores on the annual test were used to assess
ongoing learning progress and achievement.
Mathematics CRCT scores ranged from the low-700s into the mid-900s. The
required achievement score varied from subject to subject each year (C. Allen, Personal
communication, December 16, 2010). The target Mathematics CRCT scores to
demonstrate proficiency for the Spring 2010 administration was a minimum of 800
(Georgia Department of Education, 2010b).
Mathematics CRCT Scores were reported in categories of Does Not Meet (DNM),
Meets (M), or Exceeds (E) the expected level of proficiency (Georgia Department of
Education, 2010b). Mathematics CRCT scores for middle grade students in 2010 were
categorized as DNM for any score below 800; M for scores between 800 and 850; and E
45
for scores above 850 (Georgia Department of Education, 2010b). In 2010, the students
who scored below 800 (DNM) on the math portion of the CRCT were invited to
participate in the noncompulsory intervention, the extended day program.
Assumptions
There were several assumptions related to this research that were accepted as
truths of the educational process and the use of standardized testing. First, it was
assumed that the results on the annual CRCT reflected the students’ level of achievement
from participation in their education. Likewise, it was assumed that participation in the
public, middle grade education at the selected Georgia school district would facilitate
annual CRCT grades that were at or above the results from the prior year. These
assumptions applied to students’ CRCT results in both mathematics and reading. These
assumptions were based upon the inherent nature of both education and annual CRCT
examination in core academic areas. It was assumed that all learners applied their
education from the school year and any supplemental assistance toward attaining success
on the CRCT. It was believed that middle grade students would not willfully fail the
exam in order to be retained or included in the extended day program.
Another assumption of this research was that if the extended day program was
effective, the students who participated in the extended day program for help in reading
would attain improved results on the Reading portion of the CRCT from one year to the
next. Parallel to this was the assumption that students who participated in the extended
day program for help in math would attain similar or improved results on the
Mathematics portion of the CRCT from one year to the next. Based on these beliefs, it
could also be concluded that comparison of the CRCT score changes for the extended day
46
program participants and their peers who refused participation would be indicative of the
effectiveness of the adopted intervention. More specifically, a statistically significant
difference in the maintenance and/or improvement of CRCT scores in reading and math
of the students who participated in the intervention versus those who refused participation
was believed to be attributed, in part, to the extended day program and its fulfillment of
its objectives. Conversely, failure to attain improvements greater than the peers who
refused participation, was believed to suggest failure of the program to meet its
objectives. Consequently, it was assumed that the effectiveness of the extended day
program was reflected in the reading and/or math achievement levels of the students
enrolled for remediation and learning support. Based on these assumptions, the methods
of assessing the students’ achievement were established for this study.
Procedures
The first part of this study’s process involved gaining the needed approval to
conduct the study. First, permission was sought from the selected district’s
administration to secure approval for the researcher to access the extended day program
invitation and enrollment information as well as CRCT data. The district provided
consent for the data to be utilized in the manner proposed herein. Additionally,
certification of the proposed study was obtained from Argosy University’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB).
Permission was also sought from the administrators at the different middle
schools in the District. Each school’s administrator received a written request explaining
the purpose and methods proposed for the study. This study used only archival data and
did not involve any contact with the teachers or the students at the sites. Each school’s
47
principal consented to the use of the site’s CRCT data. The site administrators had
reserved the right to decline participation, despite district consent for the study.
After gaining consent to conduct the study from all of the necessary parties, the
extended day coordinator at each middle school in the district was asked to provide data
from the extended day programs of their schools. A copy of the records of the
invitations, enrollment, and test data was gathered. Specifically, the data collection
included (a) the 2010 Reading and Math CRCT scores for all students who received an
invitation to participate in the extended day program and (b) the lists of students who
accepted or declined invitations to participate in the extended day program.
There was no direct contact between the researcher and the students at the study
sites. The researcher protected the identity of the district, participating middle schools,
extended day program staff, and all middle grade students whose CRCT data was
included. The researcher was the only individual to see the original data files that
included the site and students’ names. This information was replaced with alphanumeric
codes before the data was sorted into sets for comparison. Careful data handling and use
of alphanumeric coding for anonymity minimized any risk to the participants.
After all of the student test score data for the reading and math CRCT scores was
collected, it was divided into different groups. The first group of data included the scores
of all students who accepted an invitation to take part in the extended day program for
help in reading. This group was known as Group A. The next group of data included
Reading CRCT scores for students who declined the invitation to take part in the
extended day program. This group was known as Group B. The third group of data
consisted of students’ Math CRCT scores for those students who accepted an invitation to
48
participate in the extended day program. This group was known as Group C. The last
grouping of student data included Math CRCT scores for students who declined an
invitation to take part in the extended day program. This group was known as Group D.
After all of the student data were separated into the different groupings, the data
were compared and analyzed to determine if there were significant differences in the
achievement between students who participated in the extended day program in reading
and/or math as compared to the students who did not participate in the program. A t-test
was conducted to measure whether any statistically significant differences, at the 0.05
alpha level of significance, existed in the 2010 mean reading scores between Group A
and Group B. Similarly, a second t-test was conducted to measure whether any
statistically significant differences, at the 0.05 alpha level of significance, existed in the
2010 mean mathematics scores between Group C and Group D. Microsoft’s Excel and
SPSS were utilized to generate the calculations. The data were prepared for analysis by
generating tables for each data group.
Data Processing and Analysis
All data was sorted based on the variables of participation or refusal to enroll in
the extended day program. All of the participants received education in the selected
Georgia school district during the 2009-2010 school year. The CRCT results were
required for 2010 school year for students to be included in the data set for this study.
Refer to Appendices A through D for the data samples.
The steps for examining the Reading and Math CRCT scores were the same. A t-
test was used to measure differences in achievement between the mean 2010 CRCT
scores of the students who accepted the invitation to participate in the extended day
49
program as compared to those who declined to participate. These scores were compared,
by subject area, to see whether the differences in the mean scores between the two groups
was within the range of significance (i.e., 0.05 or less).
The purpose of using a t-test was to measure whether there was a statistically
significant difference in the mean results when comparing two sets of data (Trochim,
2006). Each t-test helped to assess a variable that might have contributed to any
statistically significant differences documented between the 2010 CRCT scores in
reading or math for students who accepted and declined an invitation to take part in the
extended day program. The t-tests herein included:
1. A t-test was conducted to compare the 2010 mean Reading CRCT scores of
students who accepted an invitation to take part in the reading extended day program with
the 2010 mean Reading CRCT scores of students who declined an invitation to take part
in the reading extended day program.
2. A t-test was conducted to compare the 2010 mean Math CRCT scores of
students who accepted an invitation to take part in the math extended day program with
the 2010 mean Math CRCT scores of students who declined an invitation to take part in
the extended day program.
Microsoft’s Excel and SPSS were utilized to generate the calculations. The tables
developed to present the data were utilized to facilitate the comparison between the
paired groups. In addition, the level of change in the CRCT scores, in terms of statistical
significance, was compared for each of the listed variables. To assess the statistical
significance of the t-test results, the following scale of significance was applied.
50
Table 1
Decision Criteria for CRCT Score Comparison
p-value Interpretation
Less than 0.01 Highly statistically significant Very strong evidence that the variable was influenced
Between 0.01 – 0.05 Statistically significant Adequate evidence that the variable was influenced
Greater than 0.05 Not statistically significant Insufficient evidence that the variable was influenced
(Triola, 1992)
Based on the level of significance, it was possible to measure whether the
extended day program had influenced the achievement of the students who enrolled in the
program during the 2009-2010 school year. This data will serve as a foundation for
future assessments of the level of effectiveness of the extended day intervention. The
statistical difference in the students’ performance on the Reading and Math CRCT was
assessed at the standard, 0.05 level of significance.
Summary
This study examined how students performed in reading and math, as measured
by the 2010 Reading and Math CRCT results for students who accepted versus those who
declined an invitation to participate in the extended day programs available at the
selected district’s middle schools. Quantitative methods were used for the comparison of
the changes in the students’ CRCT scores. A series of t-tests were conducted to assess
whether statistical significance existed for any changes in the CRCT scores based on the
variables of subject and participant versus non-participant in the extended day program.
Assessing whether there was a statistically significant difference between the scores
51
indicated whether the program was having the desired impact, helping students improve
areas of weakness for academic success as indicated by the annual CRCT results.
52
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Restatement of Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the implementation of an
extended day intervention program at the middle school level influenced student
achievement. Specifically, this study examined the reading and math achievement of
middle school students who participated in the intervention, as compared to their peers
who did not. Reading and math achievement was measured by the students’ scores on
the 2010 administration of the Georgia CRCT.
The purpose behind the extended day program was to help students improve in the
academic areas where they were below grade-level proficiency standards. Students who
received an invitation to participate in the extended day intervention program were those who
Did Not Meet (DNM) standards on the reading and math portions of the 2009 administration
of the Georgia CRCT (< 800) from each of the middle schools in the district. Some of the
students invited to participate in the intervention program chose not to attend since
participation was not mandatory. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the
implementation of this intervention program actually influenced student achievement in
reading and math.
Research Question One: Reading Achievement
The first research question inquired whether there was a statistically significant
difference in the reading achievement of middle school students who attended the
extended day program as compared to their peers who met the criteria to attend, but
declined to participate. To test this question, the reading scores from the 2010
administration of the Georgia CRCT were used for the comparison. Students from Group
A (i.e., students who participated in the extended day program for reading) earned scores
53
ranging from 784-883 on the reading CRCT, with a mean score of 823.92. Students from
Group B (i.e., students who declined participation in the extended day program for
reading) earned scores ranging from 784-868 on the reading CRCT, with a mean score of
815.48.
To determine whether the difference in the mean scores between the two groups
was statistically significant, an independent samples t-test was calculated. The results of
the t-test was statistically significant at the 0.05 Alpha level, indicating that the students
who participated in the extended day intervention program demonstrated significantly
higher reading achievement than those who met the criteria to participate but declined the
intervention. Table 2 documents the input for the statistical comparison and assessment
of the 2010 Reading CRCT scores.
Table 2
Achievement Data for 2010 Reading CRCT
Variable Sample Mean SD Means Diff
Group A: Participated in Intervention
50
823.82
18.42
8.34 Group B: Declined Intervention
50
815.48
15.93
t-stat(98) p-value Cohen’s d sig CI
2010 Reading Scores 2.44 0.017 0.48 95% [1.54, 15.14]
Prior to running the prescribed t-test, it was necessary to assess the data set.
Results from the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances were not significant. This
indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met and equal variances
were reported. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test was run to assess normality; results
from this test did not show any significant levels for any variables. The study included
54
50 students who participated in the extended day program and 50 students who declined
participation in the reading extended day program. The mean scores and standard
deviation showed that the majority of the students in both groups scored above the
passing score of 800. Specifically, 48 of the 50 students from Group A (96%) scored at
least an 800 on the reading section of the 2010 CRCT. Likewise, 44 of the 50 students
from Group B (88%) scored at least an 800 on the reading section of the 2010 CRCT.
Table 2 reports the results of the t-test. The results of the t-test were statistically
significant, t (98) = 2.44, p = .017, d = 0.48, 95% CI [1.54, 15.14], suggesting the scores
of those who participated in the intervention (M = 823.82, SD = 18.24) were statistically
higher than the scores of those who declined to participate in the intervention (M =
815.48, SD =15.93). The effect size of 0.48 (Cohen’s d) indicated a medium or typical
strength of the relationship (0.2, 0.5, 0.8 = small, medium, large, respectively). The mean
difference was 8.34 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.54 and 15.14 points. The
students who participated in the intervention demonstrated statistically higher reading
achievement, as evidenced by their scores on the CRCT, than students who declined to
participate in the intervention, suggesting that the extended day program positively
influenced the reading achievement of students who participated.
Research Question Two: Math Achievement
The second research question inquired whether there was a statistically significant
difference in the math achievement of middle school students who attended the extended
day program as compared to their peers who met the criteria to attend, but declined to
participate. To test this question, the mathematics scores from the 2010 administration of
the Georgia CRCT were used for the comparison. The standard level of significance,
55
0.05, was applied. Students from Group C (i.e., students who participated in the extended
day program for mathematics) earned scores ranging from 787-861 on the mathematics
CRCT, with a mean score of 818.86. Students from Group D (i.e., students who declined
participation in the extended day program for mathematics) earned scores ranging from
780-836 on the reading CRCT, with a mean score of 808.70.
To determine whether the difference in the mean scores between the two groups
was statistically significant, an independent samples t-test was calculated. The results of
the t-test was statistically significant at the 0.05 Alpha level, indicating that the students
who participated in the extended day intervention program demonstrated significantly
higher mathematics achievement than those who met the criteria to participate but
declined the intervention. Table 3 documents the input for the statistical comparison and
assessment of the Mathematics CRCT scores
Table 3
Achievement Data for 2010 Mathematics CRCT
Variable Sample Mean SD Means Diff
Group C: Participated in Intervention
50
818.86
18.39
10.16
Group D: Declined Intervention
50
808.70
14.55
t-stat(98) p-value Cohen’s d sig CI
2010 Mathematics Scores 3.06 0.003 0.61 95% [13.58, 16.74]
Prior to running the prescribed t-test, it was necessary to assess the data set. The
results from Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances were not significant, which implies
that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met and that equal variances were
reported. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test was run to assess normality and the test was
56
not significant for any variables. There were 50 students who participated in the
intervention and 50 students who declined participation in the invitation to take part in
the extended day program for additional instruction in mathematics. The mean scores
and standard deviation showed that the majority of the students in both sample groups
scored above the passing score of 800. Specifically, 44 of the 50 students in Group C
(88%) scored at least an 800 on the mathematics section of the 2010 CRCT. Likewise,
40 of the 50 students in Group D (80%) scored at least an 800 on the mathematics section
of the 2010 CRCT.
Table 3 reports the results of the t-test. The results of the t-test were statistically
significant, t (98) = 3.06, p = 0.003, d = 0.61, 95% CI [3.58, 16.74]. These values
revealed that the scores of those who participated in the intervention (M = 818.86, SD =
18.39) were statistically higher than the scores of those who declined to participate in the
intervention (M = 808.70, SD =14.55). The effect size of 0.61 (Cohen’s d) indicated a
medium or typical strength of the relationship (0.2, 0.5, 0.8 = small, medium, large,
respectively). The mean difference was 10.16 with a 95% confidence interval of 3.58
and 16.74 points. The students who participated in the intervention scored statistically
higher than those who declined participation in the intervention, suggesting that the
extended day program positively influenced the mathematics achievement of students
who participated.
Significance Testing
The Georgia CRCT measures annual progress and achievement in the core
content areas of reading and mathematics. The students in this study had not achieved
the proficiency standard requisite for middle grade students in 2009. Therefore, they
57
were invited to participate in the noncompulsory extended day intervention for
supplemental instruction in either math or reading. The data reported herein was
reviewed for the level of success attained by the students who participated and those who
opted not to participate in the extended day intervention. The significance of the
achievement changes were reviewed to assess the impact of the intervention on the
achievement levels attained by the different groups of students.
Table 4
Significance of the Achievement Changes
Variable p-value CI Significance
Reading 0.017 0.05 – 0.01 95%
Math 0.003 < 0.01 99% Table 4 reports the p-values from the t-test data and the interpretation of the
significance level. This significance refers to the level of change in achievement,
evidenced on the CRCT, from the students who received the additional instruction in the
extended day program as compared to those who did not. For the level of reading
achievement, evidenced by the 2010 CRCT scores, the p-value was between 0.05 and
0.01, which was statistically significant at the level of 95%. For the level of math
achievement evidenced by the 2010 CRCT scores, the p-value was less than 0.01, which
was highly statistically significant at the level of 99%. The implications of this data were
considered for drawing conclusions about the study’s guiding research questions as well
as implications for practice and recommendations for further research.
Chapter Summary
The achievement data collected from students who received invitations to
participate in the extended day program for help in the reading and/or mathematics were
58
analyzed by conducting independent sample t-tests for each of the research questions.
Relevant to the research question about reading achievement, it was found that students
who participated in the extended day program for additional help in reading
demonstrated significantly higher achievement than students who declined participation
in the intervention for additional help in reading through the extended day program.
Relevant to the research question about math achievement, it was found that students who
participated in the extended day program for additional help in mathematics scored
significantly higher than students who declined participation in the intervention for
additional help in mathematics through the extended day program. Further discussion of
the findings, conclusions, and implications for practice and future research
recommendations are addressed in Chapter Five.
59
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Throughout the past decade, school districts throughout the United States have
worked on creating academic programs that worked outside the normal school day whose
purpose was to increase student achievement (Yell, 2006). The establishment of these
extra programs was the school districts’ response to the mandates set forth in NCLB
(Yell, 2006). The main purpose of these non-traditional school hour programs was to
help raise the achievement and proficiency of students in the areas of reading and
mathematics (Yell, 2006). In the state of Georgia, the achievement level of students in
the area of reading and mathematics is determined by how a student scores on the
Georgia CRCT, which is administered every spring to students in grades 3-8 (GA-DOE,
2008). The overall goal of these programs is to make sure all students are proficient in
the areas of reading and math, which helps make certain each individual school makes
AYP (Taylor, et al., 2010).
As discussed within the review of literature for this study, prior research
attributed the success of the extended day program to the use of small group tutoring,
which sometimes becomes individualized tutoring. In addition, the extended day
program helps make the schools and students accountable within the learning processes
(Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001). These approaches avail opportunities to differentiate
instruction for individual needs, strengths, and interests. Combined with the fact that the
extended day program provided students with additional learning opportunities, it also
provided students with an environment to become academically proficient in the critical
content areas of reading and mathematics (Thompson & O’Quinn, 2001). As Thompson
60
and O’Quinn (2001) attested, the provision of support outside of school hours facilitates
students’ attainment of proficiency related to the material taught during school. The
results of this study substantiated Thompson and O’Quinn’s findings, demonstrating
increased academic achievement of student who participated in the additional instruction
after school hours.
Review of prior literature revealed that individual schools and school districts
throughout the United States were searching for different instructional programs that
would adequately raise the academic achievement levels of students failing to attain
grade-level proficiency standards in the core content areas of reading and mathematics.
Many of these education institutions were using some form of extended day program to
increase the instructional time and support given to the students. These extended day
programs included additional instructional time before, during, and after school hours, or
during the summer months. Schools reported that these programs demonstrated positive
results when a clear link was made between the program content and what the students
needed to learn in order to become academically successful (Dodd & Wise, 2002). These
linkages included (a) ensuring the program helped its students in the specific areas where
the students demonstrated achievement deficiencies and (b) ensuring teachers have the
requisite knowledge to help the students address the specific areas in which the students
were academically deficient (Dodd & Wise, 2002). These basic educational constructs
required that the schools facilitated identification of each student’s individual areas of
weakness while enabling the educators to provide quality, adaptable instruction that
addressed the students’ identified content and learning needs.
61
The design of this study was created to assess whether extended day programs
were able to help students in areas where the students were viewed as academically
deficient, based on Georgia’s CRCT results in reading and math. This study required
exploration of the levels of achievement attained when analyzing the Reading and
Mathematics CRCT scores of students who were invited to participate in the
noncompulsory, extended day remediation program. More specifically, the examination
of this intervention also required a comparison of the level of change and determination
of whether a difference was evident in the achievement levels for the students who
participated as compared to the students who met the criteria to participate but declined
to take part in the subject-specific (i.e., reading or math) extended day program.
Included in this study, for reading and math, was a random sample of 50 students
who participated in the intervention program and 50 who declined participation in the
extended day program. To assess the impact of the extended day program on students’
reading achievement, the 2010 CRCT results for the 50 students who accepted the
intervention were compared to the 50 students who declined the intervention. This study
drew the student samples from schools in one Georgia school district. Since the study
only looked at results on system-wide scale, it examined how the extended day program,
rather than the individual instructors, influenced the students’ achievement in the areas of
reading and mathematics. Specifically, a t-test was used to analyze the CRCT data to
determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the scores of the two
student groups in each subject. The same approaches were used to examine the reading
and mathematics data sets, independently.
62
The invitation to participate in this additional learning time was based on prior
evidence of failure to attain requisite proficiency levels in math and/or reading.
Specifically, the 2009 CRCT results were one of the primary indicators for invitation to
participate in the extended day program. Therefore, after another year of education (i.e.,
with or without the extended day intervention as decided by the students with their
parents) the differences in the changes in the two groups of students’ reading and math
proficiency were evidence of the impact of the extended day program on the students’
achievement as demonstrated on the 2010 CRCT. The outcomes of the t-tests in both
subject areas enabled the researcher to draw conclusions about the study’s guiding
research questions and the evidence of the impact of participation in the extended day
program, in both subjects, on the students’ achievement as measured by gains on the
CRCT. The results of the t-tests in both subject areas demonstrated a high statistical
difference in the reading and mathematics achievement of students who participated in
the intervention as compared to those who declined to take part in the intervention.
Conclusions
RQ1: Impact of Program on Reading Achievement
The first question of this study required examination of the CRCT results from
students who participated and students who declined participation in the noncompulsory
extended day program for reading. The objective of the program was the provision of
additional assistance and instructional support for reading achievement. More
specifically, the purpose of the intervention program was to help students raise their
achievement so that those who failed the 2009 Reading CRCT could pass the 2010
Reading CRCT. Finally, the study assessed whether this instructional help provided
63
resulted in a statistically significant difference between the group who participated from
the group who did not. The results of the t-tests indicated that students who participated
in the extended day program scored significantly higher than students who declined
participation in the program. This statistically significant difference suggested that
students taking part in the extended day program outperformed students who declined the
additional assistance in known areas of academic need. At a level of 99% significance, it
was concluded that the students in this Georgia school district benefitted from the
extended day program in reading, as evidenced by their achievement on the 2010 CRCT.
Several factors may have influenced interpretation of the findings of this research
question. One factor that may have attributed to student success and improved test
scores of participants was the strong caliber of faculty who taught in the extended day
program. Only teachers who felt strong in the subject material chose to participate in
teaching the sessions. The teachers who felt strong in the subject material were teachers
who have the proper certification to teach the subject material. In addition, the teachers
who taught in the extended day program had an interest in teaching in the program and an
interest in helping the students improve their level of achievement in reading and/or
mathematics.
Another factor that may have attributed to the higher scores of program
participants was small learning groups. The ability of teachers to work with students in
small groups allowed them to focus more on the weaknesses of the students, which in
turn helped the students overcome these weaknesses. Having the ability to reteach
concepts and decrease the deficiencies in small group settings allowed the teacher to hone
in on the individual needs of the students. Teachers were able to better aid students in the
64
small group setting because fewer students (as opposed to a large classroom of students)
meant more instructional time and individual attention for each student. Similar results
appeared in a study conducted by Rothman and Henderson (2011), which found that
students participating in after school hours tutoring programs scored statistically higher
than similar groups of students who did not receive tutoring services.
RQ2: Impact of Program on Mathematics Achievement
The second question of this study required examination of the CRCT results from
students participated or declined participation in the noncompulsory extended day
program for mathematics. The objective of the program was the provision of additional
assistance and instructional support for math achievement. More specifically, the
purpose of the intervention program was to help students raise their achievement so that
those who failed the 2009 Mathematics CRCT were able to pass the 2010 Mathematics
CRCT. Finally, this study assessed whether this instructional help resulted in a
statistically significant difference between the group who participated and those who did
not. The results of the t-tests indicated that the students who participated in the
intervention scored significantly higher than students who declined the intervention. At a
level of 95% significance, it was concluded that the students in this Georgia school
district benefitted from the extended day program in math, as evidenced by their
achievement on the 2010 CRCT.
In addition to a strong caliber of faculty teaching in the extended day mathematics
program, and the advantages of working in small groups, additional factors may have
influenced interpretation of the findings of this research question. Since student
participation for this intervention is based on mathematics CRCT scores, the extended
65
day teacher had a breakdown of how the students scored in the different portions of the
test. Having this information allowed the extended day teacher to pinpoint the students’
specific weaknesses during the sessions and plan instruction to remediate those specific
deficiencies. A teacher was able to know exactly what the student was struggling with
because the results from the CRCT included a break down of different concepts and
standards. Additionally, students received more time learning and more practice time
with the skills needed to raise their achievement level on the mathematics portion of the
CRCT. The findings of this research question substantiated prior research of Rothman
and Henderson (2011), which revealed evident correlation between the increased
academic success and the students’ receipt of the additional instruction in math.
Implications for Practice
Ensuring that students become proficient in the Georgia Performance Standards
(GPS) is the goal of all school districts in Georgia. Consequently, the purpose of this
study was to determine whether the selected school district’s extended day program
influenced student achievement on the Reading or Mathematics portion of Georgia’s
CRCT. Annually, the CRCT is used to measure students’ mastery of GPS content
(Georgia Department of Education, 2010a). This study’s guiding research questions
facilitated the assessment of the impact of the extended day program.
Highly statistical relevant differences that emerged when comparing the
achievement levels attained by the two similar groups has pertinent implications for the
district involved with this study and others with similar objectives. The statistically
significant difference in achievement that emerged between these two similar student
groups, demonstrated that the established extended day program is successfully working
66
to advance students’ proficiency. The most significant implications involve
considerations for sustainability and/or expansion of the existing services to benefit all
struggling learners in the studied district.
To maintain program sustainability, it is recommended that the school district
continue to implement the program in its current form, to include how the program is
funded and how the program is administered throughout the school district. To maintain
stability, it is recommended that the school district continues to provide funding for the
program through the use of Title I allocations appropriated by the state. Additionally,
local supplements are recommended to ensure the program has adequate funds to
continue on a yearly basis. In addition to assuring adequate funding, it is recommended
that the same structure of program administration continues. Each school should
continue to administer the program in a way that best meets the needs of the students at
the individual schools. Likewise, teachers that continue to teach in the program should
have an interest and hold the proper certification and are included in the administration of
the extended day program.
It is recommended that the school district take steps to help the program expand.
One step that can be taken is to share the results of this study with parents. Parents who
are knowledgeable of the demonstrated success of the extended day program may be
more open to allowing their children to participate in this intervention. Another step the
school district could take is to examine how the district can make this intervention more
accessible to students. Making this intervention more accessible may include, but is not
limited to (a) transportation for participants, (b) different program hours, (c) providing
assistance in other subject areas, (d) expansion of the program to the elementary school
67
level, (e) effective communication strategies, and (f) students who receive both reading
and math help are able to attend same number of sessions as a student only attending
reading or math. The high levels of success suggest that the school district should
continue to use the program in its current format, but the school district could increase its
overall reach with a couple of changes. These changes may include mandating the
program for all students who struggled on the previous school year’s CRCT and
increasing funding to ensure the group sizes remain small.
Recommendations for Research
Despite the evident statistical differences that documented the program
effectiveness within the district of study, there are still several areas that could be pursued
for further research. Likewise, there may be other ways the program could be used to
help students attain the requisite proficiencies in the areas of reading and mathematics.
The following are recommendations for future research based on the results of this study.
1. A determination of which factors or elements of the intervention most
influence the students’ performance on the Reading and Mathematics CRCT
is warranted. These factors might include specific instructional strategies,
teacher experience, student’s attendance, collaboration with the classroom
teachers, etc.
2. A comprehensive district-wide study that assesses the changes in the levels of
achievement for students who participate in both the reading and math
sessions versus students that only participate in the reading or math program is
warranted. Specifically, do students who attend both reading and math
68
sessions achieve statistically different scores than students who only
participate in the reading or math program?
3. A comprehensive district-wide study that assesses the changes in the levels of
achievement for participants should be explored to gain a deeper
understanding of this intervention’s influence. Such a study would consider
the demographic subpopulations of student participants in an effort to
determine whether the program has a greater impact on one group over
another.
4. Longitudinal research should explore students’ sustainability of achievement
levels after participation in the extended day program. Specifically, do
students that attend the extended day program one year, sustain their
improvement in reading and/or mathematics in the years following
participation? Is it necessary for students to participate in the extended day
program every year to sustain the achieved level of academic improvement in
reading and math?
5. Additional research on other models of extended day programs should be
conducted. This would allow a comparison of different strategies that may be
equally or more effective than the current program in place.
69
REFERENCES
Afterschool Alliance. (n.d.). 21st century community learning centers federal afterschool initiative. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/policy21stcclc.cfm
Albertville City School System. (2009). Zero period. Retrieved from http://www.albert
k12.org/1GJ8BS58 Allen, S. (2009). School on Saturday? For gifted minds, it’s the best time to learn.
Retrieved from http://www.gsu.edu/21637.html Bechtel, D., & Evans, W.(1997). Extended school day/year programs: A research
synthesis. Philadelphia, PA: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Mid-Atlantic Lab for Student Success. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 461695.
Barrow County Schools. (n.d.). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Retrieved from
http://www.barrow.k12.ga.us/district/html/ayp_faq.html Bray, B. (June 12, 2008). Longer school day: Expanded learning time pros and cons.
Retrieved from http://www.andovertownsman.com/local/x645343514/Longer-school-day-Expanded-learning-time-pros-and-cons
Cahill, M. & Hughes, R. (2010). Small Schools, Big Difference. Education Week, 30(5),
pp. 22-24. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Calloway, L.J. & Knapp, C.A. (n.d.). Using grounded theory to interpret interviews. Pace
University. Monitor on Psychology, 32(3), pp. 60-62. Retrieved from http://csis .pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm
Cavanaugh, C. (May 18, 2009). Getting students more learning time online. Retrieved
from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/distance_learning.html Center for American Progress. (2010, February 19). Expanded learning time leads to
expanded learning. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/ issues/2010/02/elt_learning.html
Center for American Progress. (2010, February 17). Special Presentation: Time to
connect for student success: Community partnerships in expanded learning time schools. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2010/02/ ELTranscript.com
Citizen Schools. (2010, August 30). Two Oakland middle schools to lengthen school day
for students this school year. Retrieved from http://www.citizenschools.org/ aboutus/news/mediareleases/OaklandELTannouncementAug2010.cfm
70
City School District of Albany. (n.d.). Extended-day programs. Retrieved from http://www.albanyschools.org/district/Programs/ExtendedDay.html
Cox, K. (n.d.). What Georgia educators need to know about Georgia’s testing program.
Retrieved from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/Final%20-%20testing%20newspaper.pdf?p=4BE1EECF99CD364EA5554055463F1FBBF5D074D5FB1F2CAEB3B63B3ECB220CDD26C2114F3C57D8D2040FD88C56B817B3&Type=D
Dodd, C. & Wise, D. (2002). Extended-day programs: Time to learn. Leadership, 32, p.
24. Education Commission of the States. (2010). Extended day programs. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=43 Education Week. (2004). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/
ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/ Elev8. (2010). Elev8 New Mexico summer enrichment program. Retrieved from
http://www.elev8kids.org/news-and-announcements/elev8-new-mexico-summer-enrichment-program
Forsyth County Schools. (2009). Saturday school dates. Retrieved from http://www.for
syth.k12.ga.us/1309208610457780/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=92999
Framingham Public Schools. (n.d.). Research on extended time. Retrieved from
http://www.framingham.k12.ma.us/crd_elt_faqs.cfm#Question_1 Friedman, L. (2010, August 27). Expanding learning time through school-community
partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.nynp.biz/points-of-view/3374-expand-learning-time-through-school-community-partnerships
Gabrieli, C. (2010). More Time, More Learning. Educational Leadership, 67(7), pp. 38-
44. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Gabrieli, C. (2009, April 27). Expand school hours and you will expand learning. US
News & World Report. Retrieved from http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles /2009/04/27/expand-school-hours-and-you-will-expand-learning.html
Gabrieli, C., & Goldstein, W. (2008). Time to learn: Benefits of a longer school day.
Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/24556 Georgia Department of Education (2010a). Criterion-referenced competency tests
(CRCT). Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_testing.aspx?PageReq=CI_ TESTING_CRCT
71
Georgia Department of Education. (2010b). 2010 CRCT score interpretation guide.
Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/2010%20CRCT%20Score%20Interpretation%20Guide.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6A3BF58DD7B4DCE1FC2CD95F62E9F39D3C696DDB652ED831C&Type=D
Georgia Department of Education (2008). Answers to frequently asked questions about
AYP. Retrieved from http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/ayp2009.aspx?PageReq =FAQSAYP2009
Gewertz, C. (2009, December 7). Study eyes the effect of extra learning time on scores.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/09/14time.h29.html ?qs=extended+day
Greifner, L. (2007). Panel Favors Extended View Of Learning. (Cover story). Education
Week, 26(20), 1-25. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Guarino, H. (2007, July 19). Nineteen schools in nine districts to implement expanded
learning time. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=3564 Hopkins, L. (2007, November 27). Is more time in school better?: What expanded
learning time means. Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com/content/is-more-time-in-school-better-a36371
Hunter, M. (2006). wildcat study time: an extended-day program in the school library.
Teacher Librarian, 33(4), pp. 41-42. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database.
Jehlem, A. (2001). Longer Days, More Learning. NEA Today, 19(5), 24. Retrieved from
Academic Search Elite database. Johnson-Staub, C. & Traphagen, K. (2010, February 17). Expanded time, enriching
experiences. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ 2010/02/expanded_time.html
Jones, J. (1995). Extending school hours: A capital idea. Educational Leadership, 53(3), p. 44. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Kim, J. & White, C. (May 18, 2009). Putting the pieces together. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/elt_language_development.html Lamperes, B. (2005). Making change happen. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Los Alamitos Unified School District. (n.d.). Extended day program. Retrieved from
http://losal.schoolwires.com/146310112321272997/site/default.asp
72
Maeroff, G. (1998). Schools as community agencies help needy kids. Education Digest,
64(3), p. 29. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Marymount. (n.d.). Extended day program. Retrieved from http://marymountsb.
org/main/?page_id=65 Metzker, B. (March 2003). Time and learning. Retrieved from http://cepm.uoregon
.edu/publications/digests/digest166.html Mid-continent Research for Learning and Research. (2010). Extended school days and
school years. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/newsroom/hottopic ExtendedTime.asp
National Association for the Education of Young People. (n.d.) Title I – Helping
disadvantaged children meet high standards. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc .org/policy/federal/title1
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2006, March). Summer learning programs.
Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/Default.aspx?TabId=12843 Odder, A. (2009). We Know How to Turn Schools Around -- We Just Haven't Done It.
Education Week, 29(14), 22-23. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Owen, I. (2010, September 22). Combining community schools with expanded learning
time to help educationally disadvantaged students. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/breaking_the_mold.html
Public Schools of North Carolina. (n.d.). Answers to faqs regarding highly qualified
teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/nclb/highly/faqs/ Riley, R. (1998, March). Building extended learning opportunities. Teaching Pre K-8, p.
8. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database. Rothman, T., & Henderson, M. (2011). Do school-based tutoring programs significantly
improve student performance on standardized tests? RMLE Online, 34(6), 1-10. Retrieved from Proquest databases 858023146.
Saint Paul Public Schools. (2009, November 19). Secondary extended-day programs. Retrieved from http://www.alcsecondaryextendedday.spps.org/High_School _Extended_Day_Programs.html
Silva, E. (2010). Rebuild It and They Will Come. Educational Leadership, 67(8), pp. 60-
65. Retrieved from Academic Search Elite database.
73
Sylvan Learning. (2009, December 16). Los Angeles Unified School District and Sylvan learning launch mathematics pilot program. Retrieved from http://tutoring.sylvan learning.com/LAUSD_Sylvan_math_pilot_news_release.cfm
Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (1997). Research design and mixed-method approach a hands-on
experience. John Sydenstricker-Neto. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearch methods.net/tutorial/Sydenstricker/bolsa.html
Tarpon Springs Middle School. (n.d.). Extended learning program (elp) at Tarpon
Springs middle school. Retrieved from http://it.pinellas.k12.fl.us/schools/tarpon-ms/extend_learning.html
Taylor, J., Stecher, B., O'Day, J., Naftel, S., Le Floch, K.,C. (2010). State and Local
Implementation of the "No Child Left Behind Act" Volume IX--Accountability under "NCLB": Final Report. US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from ERIC databases.
Thompson, C. L. & O’Quinn, S.D. (2001). Eliminating the black-white achievement gap:
A summary of research. North Carolina Education Research Council. Retrieved from ERIC databases.
Triola, M.F. (1992). Elementary statistics (5th ed.). NY, NY: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Trochim, W. (2006). The t-test. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearch methods.net/kb/stat_t.php
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www2.
ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html Yell, M.L. (2006). The purpose of no child left behind. Retrieved from http://www.educ
ation.com/reference/article/purpose-no-child-left-behind/
74
APPENDICES
75
APPENDIX A
2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group A
76
APPENDIX A
2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group A
Included Sixth through Eighth Grade Students’ CRCT Data
Student Reading
Student Reading 1 790
26 823
2 827
27 812 3 824
28 834
4 827
29 830 5 864
30 830
6 813
31 826 7 824
32 809
8 850
33 821 9 835
34 800
10 826
35 821 11 823
36 834
12 835
37 841 13 816
38 818
14 821
39 800 15 784
40 816
16 800
41 830 17 821
42 803
18 850
43 842 19 810
44 827
20 811
45 860 21 806
46 834
22 821
47 827 23 814
48 810
24 802
49 883 25 832
50 834
77
APPENDIX B
2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group B
78
Appendix B
2010 Reading CRCT Scores of Group B
Included Sixth through Eighth Grade Students’ CRCT Data
Student Reading
Student Reading 1 795
26 800
2 798
27 802 3 784
28 816
4 808
29 821 5 808
30 821
6 834
31 823 7 816
32 800
8 795
33 821 9 798
34 827
10 868
35 819 11 802
36 837
12 804
37 824 13 817
38 850
14 826
39 810 15 810
40 834
16 829
41 810 17 816
42 813
18 802
43 839 19 813
44 824
20 818
45 806 21 808
46 803
22 787
47 808 23 837
48 822
24 834
49 814 25 802
50 821
79
APPENDIX C
2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group C
80
Appendix C
2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group C
Included Sixth through Eighth Grade Students’ CRCT Data
Student Mathematics
Student Mathematics 1 815
26 800
2 804
27 800 3 817
28 813
4 817
29 796 5 798
30 811
6 787
31 846 7 819
32 832
8 864
33 807 9 839
34 802
10 809
35 831 11 836
36 850
12 829
37 822 13 807
38 840
14 800
39 819 15 820
40 803
16 825
41 822 17 861
42 851
18 811
43 813 19 844
44 792
20 816
45 807 21 806
46 794
22 816
47 815 23 826
48 851
24 822
49 798 25 811
50 829
81
APPENDIX D
2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group D
82
Appendix D
2010 Mathematics CRCT Scores of Group D
Included Sixth through Eighth Grade Students’ CRCT Data
Student Mathematics
Student Mathematics 1 804
26 829
2 813
27 800 3 822
28 836
4 813
29 819 5 811
30 802
6 804
31 811 7 798
32 789
8 798
33 811 9 792
34 804
10 805
35 800 11 837
36 813
12 778
37 815 13 814
38 780
14 811
39 783 15 825
40 802
16 828
41 787 17 808
42 815
18 801
43 842 19 811
44 789
20 807
45 804 21 796
46 829
22 811
47 834 23 817
48 809
24 804
49 822 25 802
50 800
